Lords Sitting of 9 March 1824

CLERK OF PARLIAMENT.
The Earl of Liverpoolrose, pursuant to notice, to move for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the present state of the office of Clerk of Parliament, and into the best means of hereafter regulating it. It was not his intention, he said, to trouble their lordships with any observations. It would be the object of the committee to inquire into this office, with a view of putting it on a permanent footing. The committee would have some little conflicting interests to attend to, but there was no doubt it would do justice to all parties.
Earl Grosvenorobserved, that no immediate advantage to the public would arise from this measure; but their lordships must be aware, that a very considerable saving might take place on the decease of the person who now held the office. The noble earl then alluded to the office of Remembrancer of the Exchequer. Notwithstanding the regulation for the abolition of that office, a person had recently been appointed to it.
The Earl of Liverpoolreminded their lordships, that with respect to the offices of the Exchequer, the law which had been passed for their abolition authorized the Lords of the Treasury to make what regulations they thought necessary in them. This had been done as far as possible in these offices. With regard to the Remembrancer of the Exchequer, it had, been found necessary to put it on a new fooling; but before it should be finally regulated, it was the wish of the barons of the Exchequer to ascertain precisely what ought to be done with it, and for
830
that purpose a gentleman had been appointed to execute the necessary duties, but without a salary.
The motion was then agreed to.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Lord Calthorpesaid, he would take the opportunity of adverting to a subject in which the interest of the public, and the honour and dignity of their lordships' House were deeply concerned. He alluded to the new arrangement which had been made by their lordships for hearing appeals. This arrangement he had heard complained of within doors, and unsparingly censured out of doors, and not one word any where, either in doors or out of doors, in its favour except that it had promoted the convenience of their lordships. To him it appeared that this arrangement had done much to take from the country that confidence which it had once placed in the appellant jurisdiction of their lordships House. The first circumstance which, in his opinion, made this measure derogatory to their dignity was, that a commission had issued, naming the highest tribunal of the empire, to try causes in the absence of the highest judge. The whole arrangement was, in his lordship's opinion, a great error; inasmuch as it permitted an inferior judge to sit where only the highest judge of the land bad before presided. He was far from saying this with any wish to censure the learned lord who presided in the absence of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, or in any way to depreciate his merits; but he could not have the high authority of the lord chancellor. The arrangement, besides created a great anomaly; which, though a temporary regulation had obviated it with regard to England, was in same measure true with regard to Scotland—the anomaly of bringing the decisions of a superior judge before an inferior judge, by appeal. This was the case with the Scotch courts, the decisions of which were brought for revisal before an individual inferior to the lord president in judicial authority, and which had never before been subjected but to the revision of the authority of the lord high chancellor. The arrangement was, in his opinion, therefore founded on a wrong principle, as far as regarded the presiding judge; and he thought it equally wrong as far as regarded the judicial colleagues of the learned lord who was to preside. Those noble lords were not brought here to at-

831
tend to the whole of the pleadings, but, according to the regulations, came on certain days, and those regulations went upon the principle, that noble lords would attend only one day. It was optional for noble lords to attend beyond that day, or not. In fact, except on extraordinary occasions, hardly any peers attended, but the two who were ordered. It was true, the regulations of the House did not prohibit their being present; but, if they attended through the whole of a case, it was not owing to the regulations, but to their own choice. Such an arrangement could not but tend to lower the high authority of the House in the eyes of the country; and he thought it worthy of the attention of their lordships to consider if, for the sake of some little convenience, they should run so great a risk. Then, adverting to another subject, his lordship said, it was not only as a judicial, but as a legislative assembly, that he feared their lordships were sinking in the estimation of the public. In the early part of the session, it was plain to all the world, that their lordships, in their legislative capacity, met day after day only to adjourn. The course of business in that House, and the manner of disposing of bills, was not such as to give due legislative consideration to the measures which received the approbation of their lordships. The extraordinary restriction thrown on the power of that House to originate bills, was, he believed, one cause of the impediments to their proceedings. This restriction did not apply to bills only for levying money, but also to bills effecting changes, the advantages of which were universally allowed. These restrictions at present went a great deal further than was warranted by the constitutional jealousy which it might become the other House to entertain. He stated this with less reserve, because he had a high respect for the authority of the other House; but at the same time it did appear to him, that their lordships were seriously aggrieved thereby. But, if at the early part of the session they had nothing to do, at its close the bills came up from the other House in such numbers, that their lordships had no alternative but to accede to or reject them without due examination. The business of legislation was therefore only half done, by that House being deprived of half its power. Other serious evils also arose from this mode of carrying on the public business. The dignity of both Houses of parliament was
832
lowered; and the country at large was proportionably injured. It was perfectly evident, that the members of their lordships' House were deprived of that great advantage, which was one of the most distinguished privileges of all men in a country like this; namely, that of contributing by their exertions, equally with their fellow-citizens, to the public welfare.
The Earl of Liverpoolthought it necessary to offer a few words on the observations of the noble lord. Though the remarks which had fallen from the noble lord did not apply in any degree to the motion before their lordships, it was of some consequence that the first part of his lordship's speech should not pass without observation. The noble lord had chosen to attack the regulation with regard to appeals, which he had described as having nothing to recommend it but their lordships' convenience. Their lordships did not, however, need to be told, that that regulation was not adopted until after long and deliberate consideration. Complaints were numerous of the number of appeals which were undecided from all parts of the united kingdom, particularly from one part; and to remedy this and to do justice, was the motive for the regulation. It was not adopted from any summary view of the matter, nor out of deference to any individual opinion, but it arose out of the recommendation of a committee appointed by their lordships from both sides of the House; and a committee more divested of passion or prejudice it was not possible to select. There were in it some of the most distinguished members of their lordships' House, and some noble lords intimately connected with that part of the united kingdom from which the greatest number of appeals came. The plan adopted came recommended by that committee, and it was not adopted until after long and anxious consideration. The committee was not closed against any proposition which might originate either with their lordships or with other persons, and the plan which was adopted was the best that could be found to effect the object. The great object proposed to be attained by the regulation was, to do justice to the appellants, who called for the decision of the House on their cases, and more particularly to those of that part of the united kingdom in which the greatest arrear was found. There certainly was some difference of opinion as to the mode proposed in the committee,

833
but there was no difference of opinion as to the necessity of getting rid of the arrear of appeals by some means or other. Their lordships must be aware, that a commission of inquiry into the administration of justice in Scotland was going on. The report of that commission would soon be laid before parliament, and he hoped that, in consequence of its recommendation, measures would be adopted to lessen the number of appeals. But, if their lordships were even certain that the system of administering justice in Scotland was perfect, still it would be necessary to get rid of the existing arrear of appeals. With respect to the discredit into which the noble lord was afraid the judicial authority of the House would be brought, he could not see how that was likely to be the result of an evident wish to do justice. As to the objection taken to the mode of securing the attendance of peers, he conceived it to be of little weight. He must maintain, that whether three lords or thirty were present, the decision which they came to was the decision of the House, and was as complete as if every noble lord was in his place when it was made. By the regulations made for their lordships' government, three peers constituted a House; and, by the regulations of the Commons, forty members must be present before that House was formed. But, was it ever meant by these regulations that the numbers required to be present at the commencement of a sitting must continue until its close, or until the business before them was concluded? There certainly was no obligation of that kind. A limited number was necessary in either House to set the proceedings a-going, and to continue them; but it was not expected that the same individuals should always be present. Though certain lords were summoned to attend on the hearing of appeals, it was not to be supposed that no other noble lords were present. Those to whose judgment, in matters of that kind, the House was accustomed to pay respect were generally in their places. A noble and learned friend of his (lord Redesdale), who was exempted on account of his age, and whose name had not been drawn, nevertheless almost constantly gave his attendance on appeals. In fact, the proceedings in appeals went on precisely as before, every member of the House being at liberty to attend if he pleased: the only difference was, that measures were now taken to
834
secure a House of peers. He hoped' for the credit and honour of the House' whatever might be thought of the plan abstractedly, that now it was established, their lordships would give it a fair trial.
Lord Hollandagreed with the noble lord opposite, that the subject had at the time been fairly discussed; still he felt it incumbent on him, after what had fallen from the noble lord, to say a few words. It was true that the plan had not been adopted till after a long consideration; and, although he had not the honour to be a member of that committee which had been so deservedly eulogised by the noble lord, he believed it had fulfilled its functions with great zeal. In justice, however, to himself, and to the noble lord who had first addressed them, he must say, that when he came to consider the plan proposed, it did appear to him the most unparliamentary resolution that had ever, within his recollection, passed that House. It was more directed against the honour and dignity of parliament, than any proceeding adopted in his time. This was the first instance in which the House, acting as the highest tribunal in the country, had declared to the public, that justice was administered here by one man. This was the first time the House had been laid prostrate at the feet of learned lords, and the first time it had been announced, that all the other peers were mere cyphers, attending to make up a House. This was the first time that individual peers were to be regularly called on to discharge a duty which belonged to all. He did not object to the measure on account of any inconvenience to which it might subject noble lords, but he protested against the principle of calling on individual members to discharge the duty which was common to all their lordships. It was pregnant with destruction to them in their united capacity to act on a principle like this. For the measure, too, there seemed to be no other reason than conveniency. It was the ratio suasoria, as well as the ratio justifica. The more he reflected on this plan, the stronger he felt the desire to censure it. If such a proceeding were neccesary, it should nave been a legislative measure, and not a resolution of that House. It was an alteration in the judicature of the country. After reflecting much on the matter, he was persuaded that it would have been better to have made a breach in a princi-

835
ple of the constitution, by making a permanent committee of that House an appellate tribunal for hearing of Scotch appeals, than thus, by a resolution of their own, break through the forms of the House, and thereby forfeiting the respect of the country. It was true that in coming to a decision, they had the benefit of the learning of the noble lord on the woolsack; and it was true that the House would come to no decision without paying a due respect to the opinions of the other learned lords in the House. But he knew of no distinction between learned and unlearned lords; they were all peers in parliament, whether they sat on a woolsack or on a bench; but now, for the first time, this resolution respecting the hearing of appeals informed the public, that there were distinctions among them—that it was not the body of the peers who gave judgment, but other persons who attended and decided for them. He knew it would be said, that it had always been so—that the decisions were formerly given by the law lords who attended—but the difference was very great, when the fact was so distinctly exposed. Every man in the country was now informed of the manner in which this business was managed, and knew perfectly well that one noble lord was summoned to hear an appeal on the Monday, and another noble lord to hear the continuance of the same appeal on the Tuesday. He did not mean to say that any practical injustice was done to the appellants by this regulation; but what he objected to was, the exposure which it created, and which, as a member of that House, in which he had spent a considerable part of his time to make it useful to the country, he could not but deplore. Indeed, he would not now have said what he had stated on this subject, had he not felt it to be his duty to support the observations of the noble lord who had so justly decribed the manner in which the House was lowering itself in the public opinion. The noble earl opposite had stated that this measure was merely a temporary one. He sincerely hoped that it would prove so. He hoped that the result of the commission in Scotland would soon enable their lordships to return to the ancient, regular, and wholesome practice. The commissioners would deserve well of the House and of the country if they should be the means of correcting the present irregularities in the appellant jurisdiction of the House, and
836
rendering it palatable. As it now stood, its exercise appeared a sort of juggle. One person heard and another decided a cause, or rather the same person both heard and decided, and the others attended merely for form.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, that the noble lord who had last addressed their lordships had declared, now that the plan was adopted, that he would do what he could to make it palatable to the public, and yet he seemed by his speech anxious only to make it unpalatable. In point of practice, the system which the noble lords opposite condemned worked well; for since the short time it had been established nineteen causes had been disposed of. The only difference made by this regulation was, that the attendance of noble lords was no longer voluntary, which if it displeased those who were obliged to attend, saved the suitors who formerly came to the bar, and found no person to administer justice, a great deal of expense. The noble lord said, it was absurd for a peer to come during the middle of a cause; but this took place before, and would again take place, whether their lordships attended voluntarily or not. As to the observations made by the noble lord who brought on this discussion, of judgments being pronounced by an inferior judge, it was not to be expected that placing a man on the woolsack would inspire him with knowledge; and, though their lordships were accustomed to place high and deserved confidence in the noble and learned lord who had so long sat on the woolsack, it was not therefore a legitimate conclusion, that no other could be confided in. In fact also, it was not a novelty. For during the indisposition of the noble and learned lord, a commission had more than once issued, and causes had been decided there, under the presidency of persons whom the noble lord called, inferior judges. [The noble earl addressed the House at much greater length, but we were only able now and then to gather the meaning of a sentence].
The Earl of Darnleywished to direct the attention of the House to that part of the noble lord's speech who had first addresssed them, which referred to the proceedings of their lordships in their legislative capacity. He had frequently called the attention of their lordships to this subject, and entreated them to wipe off this stain. Some method, he thought,

837
might be adopted of apportioning the labours of their lordships more equally over the session, so that in the early part of it, they might not meet merely to adjourn, and in the latter part be so hurried, that business was disposed of without examination.
The motion was agreed to.